Konstantinos From Greece, joined Jun 2001, 389 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1085 times:
Look, most of the airlines in the world are having big big big problems, it's not just Olympic. Look at what happened to Swiss Air and others.
I don't think Olympic will go down so easy. They won't let her go down. And if Olympic does go down, then that will happen some time when the New Democracy Party gets into power, if they do.
0A340 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 263 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1056 times:
...and the options are what exactly?
Continuing on an airline operation that hasn't posted a profit in 20 years? Exactly WHO is going to bankroll this? And WHY money from the average Belgian/Greek taxpayer would have to be poured in in ever increasing numbers to support a losing proposition?
Or getting to the point that there is a possibility that OA (and hypothetically the old SN) be profitable? Great! Then why this hasn't happened in more than 20 years?
0A340 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 263 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 1008 times:
"OA340, do you honestly belive if the government was to liquidate Olympic that taxes would go down? No why! Not in 100 years"
Taxes won't go down - agree.
But the country's balance sheet will improve. The country's need to borrow more to cover the losses will be less, and this drives down interest rates ('cause governments issue higher-interest bonds to attract funds when in need). In the end, more available money for investment where really needed!
And more important: This is a case with a "patient" that suffers from "chronic and persistent need for a protectionist environment" to survive. Managment, employees, customers, all are still in the mode of the "big-state-takes-care-of-business", and many, unfortunately still believe in it (or even worse, in the white-and-rich prince -Vardinoyiannis?- that will 'save' the company).
Why do you think nobody moved forward to put the money where the mouth is? Why nobody offered a mere 100 m E to buy this company? C'mon, this is barely the price of one big jet, and the company has 30 of them!
Why? Because the never-going-away operating LOSSES are a multiple of this 'assessed' value. May be because the mentality of the employees is such that guarrantee FAILURE no matter what the changes will be: "Hands-off-our-rights" - yeah, right!
May be because the mentality of the people currently in charge of the privatization is such that guarrantees FAILURE by insisting on not touching the so-called "rights" of the employees.
I don't really know. I 'm only guessing. The point is, too many people looked into buying, nobody did. They probably know better. Cyprus looked into the books and they laughed. Agean did the same. Axon went down themselves. The Aussie "saviors" disappeared as the day to come forward with the money arrived.
So why would the Greek Taxpayer k. Mhtsos continue to keep paying out of his taxes?
Just wondering aloud.
PS: not to mention that this big elephand stymies healthy competition... By allowing this unsustainable company to go on we thwart any other to grow sufficiently and effectively cut off other alternatives which can otherwise grow to cover market needs...